Comparing Players From Different Eras

[Old Nine Baller]

These comments were taken from the "pool myths" thread.

During the US Open commentary, I think it was Pat Fleming discussing this. He said he goes back and watches the old tapes and it was his observation that today's players are a lot better at rotation games than the old time players (for example a Balsis , Mizerak, or Crane). He thought the old time champions could adapt to the current conditions and become top players now, but as far as where they were versus a Shane or Dennis, they were not in that league.

It apparently was Mark Wilson who made the comment.

And Mark said emphatically those old greats were not great in kicking and playing like Dennis and SVB now.
They were just great pocketers.

When you compare players from different eras you must also take into account the changes in equipment and games played in that era.

Wilson apparently thinks that the oldtimers could become top players but not the elite. That's not fair to them. You must consider the opposite; Put Shane, Corey, Shannon or a few others on the oldtime tables with slow cloth, less-lively rails, "clay" balls, non-air-conditioned rooms, and see how they would perform. Sooner or later they would adapt but not before losing a lot. Their accuracy would also suffer when having to hit balls much harder to move the cueball around the table.

As far as the modern players playing rotation games better and kicking better; How hard is it to see that 9 & 10 Ball have overtaken 14.1 as the preferred games for deciding championships? Of course the players that play these games are going to kick better, the oldtimers played two-foul and pushed-out when hooked or confronted with dangerous situations. Do you think that Shane would automatically know where to push-out playing two-foul 9 ball? Of course not but he would learn because he is a great player.

Finally, to say that oldtime players were just "great pocketers" is to detract greatly from what they were and the legacy they left behind. Many of these guys grew up playing on 5x10's, where position was paramount and "great pocketers" were weeded out from the elite of the era.


Those are my thoughts on the topic, what are yours?

ONB

 

[JAM]

My thought is players from older generations were better shot-makers due to the older rules in rotation pool of two-shot/push-out. You didn't depend on the break or the luck factor to win games. It was more of an offensive game. You'd push out to a shot that you think you could make and your opponent could not. That includes kickshots and banks.

I don't agree with Mark's assessment.

 

[nobcitypool]

After watching numerous matches on YouTube, it is my opinion the diamond tables with the faster rails and tighter pockets with deeper shelves changed the game. The old time great shot makers could no longer depend on their shot making as the shots became tougher. To many shots that used to go in now rattled out. The game began to require much greater cb positioning to avoid those tough shots. To be clear, given time and dedication, I believe most of those old timers would have adapted as they were simply great players.

The old time greats also didn't have the great European and Asian pool players, who are on the scene today, to contend with either.

Great is great. The majority of the great old timers would adapt to today's conditions. The majority of today's great players would adapt to the old time tables, balls and environment. From what I've read, the Philippinos grow up in their own country playing mostly in old time type conditions. They seem to have adapted rather well and quickly to the new tables, balls and conditions.

 

[Johnnyt]

The big factor IMO is that on the slow cloth you had to hit so many shots so much harder. We all know anytime you have to hit balls hard you have more misses and more missed position. You just can't miss as much and get poor position and leave easy safes today as the top players did back then. Buddy was just about unbeatable on slow cloth. Johnnyt

 

[Mikjary]

I think the top players from years past would still be top players if they were born today. They'd learn the game using the different equipment and rules and still shine. In fact, with all the information available to them, they'd probably be that much stronger at a faster clip.

When you watch old film of baseball, basketball, tennis, etc. pros, they seem to be playing at a lower level despite making their shots, etc. With what they had to work with as far as strategy, equipment, and physical training, they were the best of their time.

Improvements in the mental game, better equipment, and an abundance of strategies and know how would have given the older players the same abilities we see now. If you've got the right tools, the job is a lot easier.

Best,
Mike

 

[Celtic]

You must consider the opposite; Put Shane, Corey, Shannon or a few others on the oldtime tables with slow cloth, less-lively rails, "clay" balls, non-air-conditioned rooms, and see how they would perform.

I am sorry but that is also "very" wrong.

Players of today have also benefited from far better access to information, the ability to watch video of players, the ability to compete with the best players from all over the world in a variety of different games that build different skill sets, ect...

If you wanted to "REALLY compare SVB and Mosconi then you take baby SVB and you take baby Mosconi and you have both of those guys grow up into the exact same era with the exact same level of exposure and initial opportunities. Whether it be 1980 you have both of them born and they end up in our current era or it is 1920 and you end up in what "was" Mosconi's era you put them into the same position and see where their natural talent takes each one.

Pulling Mosconi out of the 1940's and dropping him into modern pool would be a massive shift. Sure he would love the equipment and likely shoot well as far as pocketing and shape goes but he never had much experience playing rotation pool, he would likely not have much hope in 1-pocket events due to a lack of exposure and knowledge that only comes with really playing that game. He WOULD be an absolute killing once a year at the 14.1 event. He would eventually figure some games out, but keep also in mind the fact you are taking a guy who grew up as a phenom and who was winning and a champion and the most dominant player in the world through the whole of his prime. You are asking a guy like that to step into an unfamiliar pool world playing unfamiliar games against pros who "have" played those games professionally for most of their lives and area comfortable with them. Willie is going to lose some early when learning, and for a guy like him who is used to instead dominating the ability to maintain his confidence and killer instinct in that situation would not be assured. He was simply not that used to losing and he was NEVER used to being the underdog in a match once he hit his prime.

The exact same thing goes for an in his prime SVB is you sent him back in time. Would he adapt to the new equipment quickly? Would he adapt to the different mentality pool had back then? He is now playing exclusively 14.1 pool, not his strong suit in the first place but that is THE only game that matters back then and if you are a pro you are competing in that game or not at all. So he has to learn the one game he is weakest at AND he has to learn it against professionals who knew that game at a level few alive today can comprehend. Even Schmidt and Sigel showed just how different the game of 14.1 is on slow cloth when they played their challenge match in the IPT, the runs were pathetic compared to both todays normal standards and the standards of old that Mosconi set.

 

[King T]

I agree..,

Many of the old time players would have not been winning as much as they did if the would have had to deal with the influx of players from around the world the way that the current players do.

 

[Old Nine Baller]

I am sorry but that is also "very" wrong.

Players of today have also benefited from far better access to information, the ability to watch video of players, the ability to compete with the best players from all over the world in a variety of different games that build different skill sets, ect...

If you wanted to "REALLY compare SVB and Mosconi then you take baby SVB and you take baby Mosconi and you have both of those guys grow up into the exact same era with the exact same level of exposure and initial opportunities. Whether it be 1980 you have both of them born and they end up in our current era or it is 1920 and you end up in what "was" Mosconi's era you put them into the same position and see where their natural talent takes each one.

Pulling Mosconi out of the 1940's and dropping him into modern pool would be a massive shift. Sure he would love the equipment and likely shoot well as far as pocketing and shape goes but he never had much experience playing rotation pool, he would likely not have much hope in 1-pocket events due to a lack of exposure and knowledge that only comes with really playing that game. He WOULD be an absolute killing once a year at the 14.1 event. He would eventually figure some games out, but keep also in mind the fact you are taking a guy who grew up as a phenom and who was winning and a champion and the most dominant player in the world through the whole of his prime. You are asking a guy like that to step into an unfamiliar pool world playing unfamiliar games against pros who "have" played those games professionally for most of their lives and area comfortable with them. Willie is going to lose some early when learning, and for a guy like him who is used to instead dominating the ability to maintain his confidence and killer instinct in that situation would not be assured. He was simply not that used to losing and he was NEVER used to being the underdog in a match once he hit his prime.

The exact same thing goes for an in his prime SVB is you sent him back in time. Would he adapt to the new equipment quickly? Would he adapt to the different mentality pool had back then? He is now playing exclusively 14.1 pool, not his strong suit in the first place but that is THE only game that matters back then and if you are a pro you are competing in that game or not at all. So he has to learn the one game he is weakest at AND he has to learn it against professionals who knew that game at a level few alive today can comprehend. Even Schmidt and Sigel showed just how different the game of 14.1 is on slow cloth when they played their challenge match in the IPT, the runs were pathetic compared to both todays normal standards and the standards of old that Mosconi set.

Almost everything you wrote agrees with what I wrote. Exactly what is "very" wrong with what I wrote?

ONB

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Many of the old time players would have not been winning as much as they did if the would have had to deal with the influx of players from around the world the way that the current players do.

They dealt with great players from Mexico, England (snooker champions), Puerto Rico and other places. Just because Efren & Parica weren't born yet doesn't negate that.

ONB

 

[King T]

Yea but...,

The big factor IMO is that on the slow cloth you had to hit so many shots so much harder. We all know anytime you have to hit balls hard you have more misses and more missed position. You just can't miss as much and get poor position and leave easy safes today as the top players did back then. Buddy was just about unbeatable on slow cloth. Johnnyt

But the old tables also had BIG pockets, all Gandys, so the players today would see a increase in fire power and that would be a game changer.

 

[phil dade]

Pool is popular in the Philippines as is once was here....there is nothing special in the water that makes Efren, Jose, Francisco etc great!

 

[Old Nine Baller]

The big factor IMO is that on the slow cloth you had to hit so many shots so much harder. We all know anytime you have to hit balls hard you have more misses and more missed position. You just can't miss as much and get poor position and leave easy safes today as the top players did back then. Buddy was just about unbeatable on slow cloth. Johnnyt

But the old tables also had BIG pockets, all Gandys, so the players today would see a increase in fire power and that would be a game changer.

In your example the players of today would be limited by hitting the balls harder and the corresponding decrease in accuracy, negating an "increase in firepower".

All things are equal. Older players in new era or newer players in an older era.

ONB

 

[Celtic]

Almost everything you wrote agrees with what I wrote. Exactly what is "very" wrong with what I wrote?

ONB

You simply stated

Put Shane, Corey, Shannon or a few others on the oldtime tables with slow cloth, less-lively rails, "clay" balls, non-air-conditioned rooms, and see how they would perform.

and omitted the "key" requirement that when moving people back and forth through time you cannot simply move them while "in" their prime and must actually allow the players to rise up into that different era as the actually players of that era do in order to get a proper test of their actual abilities.

This debate has been dealt with ad nauseam for over a decade on AZB and we ALWAYS get to the point where someone just wants to magically import Mosconi from his prime into the US Open of 9-ball, have him not win the tournament in a game he never played, on equipment he is not used to, and against players who have benefitted from the era they grew up in. And then it is "end of discussion" when people admit IN THAT instance Mosconi is likely in tough coming like a freaking fish out of water.

What you posted was simply going to put us down the same discussion I have already read 14,262 times on AZB and I wanted to end that BS before it even began.

 

[the Professor]

My thoughts on comparison…

1. Its obviously tough because they played on different equipment… most notably: Cloth, Pocket Size,
Low deflection shafts, Jump Sticks.

2. They also played different games at times: Two shot push out vs. Texas Express….

I think the best comparison you could actually do in regards to players in different time periods would be to look at acustat shooting percentages……… For example.. you could take Shanes percentage from the US Open and compare it to the shooting percentage of a past US open champion….

Its not perfect, but I think it is the best that can be done if you really wanted to make a comparison

 

[De420MadHatter]

Rhetorical!!! They would play the same!! They all have the hand eye cordination, and the mindset that is required to be a champion. If Mosconi was born today or Shane was born 100 yrs ago they would each be champions on the equipment they had. Whether there was air conditioning in the room, simonis 860 or shag carpet on the table, etc... all of that is of no consequence.

 

[Old Nine Baller]

What you posted was simply going to put us down the same discussion I have already read 14,262 times on AZB and I wanted to end that BS before it even began.

I only joined this forum 1 year ago. I don't think I saw the other 14,261 instances of this topic being discussed. You can always recuse yourself from the discussion, I happened to think it was interesting to hear everyone's opinions.

ONB

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Those are my thoughts on the topic, what are yours?

ONB

Rhetorical!!!

I did not ask a rhetorical question. I was seeking relevant replies.

ONB

 

[klockdoc]

These comments were taken from the "pool myths" thread.



It apparently was Mark Wilson who made the comment.




When you compare players from different eras you must also take into account the changes in equipment and games played in that era.

Wilson apparently thinks that the oldtimers could become top players but not the elite. That's not fair to them. You must consider the opposite; Put Shane, Corey, Shannon or a few others on the oldtime tables with slow cloth, less-lively rails, "clay" balls, non-air-conditioned rooms, and see how they would perform. Sooner or later they would adapt but not before losing a lot. Their accuracy would also suffer when having to hit balls much harder to move the cueball around the table.

As far as the modern players playing rotation games better and kicking better; How hard is it to see that 9 & 10 Ball have overtaken 14.1 as the preferred games for deciding championships? Of course the players that play these games are going to kick better, the oldtimers played two-foul and pushed-out when hooked or confronted with dangerous situations. Do you think that Shane would automatically know where to push-out playing two-foul 9 ball? Of course not but he would learn because he is a great player.

Finally, to say that oldtime players were just "great pocketers" is to detract greatly from what they were and the legacy they left behind. Many of these guys grew up playing on 5x10's, where position was paramount and "great pocketers" were weeded out from the elite of the era.


Those are my thoughts on the topic, what are yours?

ONB

Yeah, 4 x 8 tables with 5 1/4" pockets. I don't believe that most players grew up shooting on 5 X 10's. I grew up in the '60's and there was only a couple of 5 x 10's in town. Most were 4 1/2 X 9's or 4 X 8"s. And I live in a large city that hosted many a top pool player.

You don't think that over the years that the top players of today have been confronted with slow cloth, over and under sized balls, non air conditioned rooms, dead rails and other problem areas with tables in their "road days? If you do, you haven't been out playing other in other areas.

I played a lot of 2 shot "push out". In fact, that is the style game that I started playing in my era. However, if you think that style of play is harder to learn than accurately placing a cue ball in a more difficult position while hooking your opponent, then you're missing something.

I also remembered that SVB and Earl played pretty sporty on the last 5 x 10 challenge they had.

I totally agree with Mark Wilson's assessment of the players of today.

 

[measureman]

I started playing in the early '60s on slow cloth with clay balls
But here is my story regarding tables.
I played for several years in one room that had Anniversary tables.
You could shoot a ball down the rail and it would still go in if it grazed the rail.
Then after the movie the "Hustler" came out a lot of rooms opened with Gold Crowns.
I found those tables to be harder to play on then the Anniversary tables.You had to hit it down the rail a little cleaner.
Now I have been playing on Diamonds almost exclusively and they are tougher yet.
Every now and then i get to play on Gold Crowns and I think how much easier they are then Diamonds.
So the moral to the story is I think the old timers played on softer tables but the slow cloth and clay balls probably evened things out.
The old timers(And I saw most of them)played the game they had to for their era.
And if anybody thinks that they could not adapt to the modern game you are wrong.
I am not one of the old greats but I grew up playing 14.1 almost exclusively on soft tables,slow cloth and clay balls and I have adapted quite nicely to tough Diamonds,fast cloth and modern balls.

 

[Jdale]

apples and oranges